ReverendJasen:This is not justice. The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.

To be honest, courts tend to avoid trying to do "justice" as that is a pretty subjective and sticky question, and its pretty rare to get two people to agree when it has been done. Doing law is hard enough.

Gonz:How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

So someone selling live, rabid, feral hogs should skate? Cause that it a natural product in a natural state. "Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you". If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid. And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people. No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

/Kinda want the government to establish a preserve of a 1340s Cumbrian village for those who consider public health and safety regs some form of abject tyranny. You hate pasteurization? Then go live without it - and every other totalitarian indignity, like medicine based on science, and not living in filth 24/7

ReverendJasen:JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.

Yes, and that's exactly the point. This is another case where the prosecutor has reason to believe that if the jury know the reasons or circumstances that lead to the breaking of the law in question, they might not be able to convict with good conscience. What they want is to simply say "was the law brooken, yes or no?"This is not justice. The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice. And if a jury hears all the facts, and then says "well, he broke the letter of the law, but we don't agree he should be punished for it (or had little other choice, etc)" then the law is wrong, too vague, stupid, or unconscionable. Jury nullifcation is a good thing--it's one of the only ways we as a people have to protect each other from bad laws and bad lawmakers.

Funny thing, in the teen lesbian thread, there's sure a bunch of FARKers who went with "Did she break the law? Yes? Then move on".

Tatterdemalian:mbillips: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.

This. Might as well eliminate the FDA while you're at it.

/yes, the economy is hobbled by overregulation//removing regulations on food standards while keeping the ones that force farmers to spend at least 15 minutes each day "emotionally bonding and mentally stimulating" each individual head of livestock is the definition of doing it wrong

Oh, Nanny State! Please don't treat me like an adult and let me make a choice in this matter! Protect me from nature, and make sure you regulate exactly what I may eat, as I am a frightened individual who needs to be protected from myself.

bluefoxicy:It's a Cardassian trial. The verdict and the sentence have already been determined; the trial is just to show the people that the accused is guilty and understands what he did wrong.

or - perhaps the charge has actual elements and it is the job of the jury, as the finder of fact, to decide only those facts that are in dispute. There would be no need to introduce facts that are irrelevant to the dispute. As an example. Alice is accused of murdering Bob. Let us assume the statute for murder requires a showing of:Unlawfulkillingof a humanby another humanwith intent to do soThe only fact in dispute is whether Alice intended to kill Bob, or only wound him. The jury is there to weigh the actual relevant evidence and decide what it thinks is true.

Now let us assume that the defense wants to introduce the "fact" that Bob was a pedophile. There is evidence that Alice had no idea Bob liked little kids, but the defense knows that people hate pedophiles and that it may change how the jury considers Bob's murder. This fact is utterly irrelevant to the question before the jury: did Alice intend to kill, or only wound him.

The reason they constrain the facts here is to avoid the jury making a pronouncement on raw milk regulations rather than on the actual charges. Of course, what the jury actually does in chambers of course, is up to them.

Gonz:Tatterdemalian: mbillips: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.

This. Might as well eliminate the FDA while you're at it.

/yes, the economy is hobbled by overregulation//removing regulations on food standards while keeping the ones that force farmers to spend at least 15 minutes each day "emotionally bonding and mentally stimulating" each individual head of livestock is the definition of doing it wrong

Oh, Nanny State! Please don't treat me like an adult and let me make a choice in this matter! Protect me from nature, and make sure you regulate exactly what I may eat, as I am a frightened individual who needs to be protected from myself.

Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.

phalamir:Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

So someone selling live, rabid, feral hogs should skate? Cause that it a natural product in a natural state. "Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you". If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid. And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people. No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

/Kinda want the government to establish a preserve of a 1340s Cumbrian village for those who consider public health and safety regs some form of abject tyranny. You hate pasteurization? Then go live without it - and every other totalitarian indignity, like medicine based on science, and not living in filth 24/7

So how do you explain the government merely taxing known poisons such as alcohol and tobacco? Why doesnt it protect us then?

thurstonxhowell:Teiritzamna: farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......

But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.

Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.

From the Article:The state is arguing that Hershberger violated the law by selling milk (raw) while he was not licensed.

If he were selling milk to a processing plant (for which licences can be obtained) without a license the charge would be appropriate. It sounds like the judge is allowing an end-run because the laws don't currently exist to prosecute.

Russ1642:Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.

I have a better idea: instead of misrepresenting my position on the manner, let's go with what I actually think. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and allow the sale of both pasteurized and raw milk, and let the public make its own decisions about nutrition.

Obviously, until there's enough data on the subject, you're going to want to err on the side of caution in re: schools and hospitals and such. But this isn't 1918, we're not bringing milk to town in a Model T anymore. Let's let people have a choice in the manner.

And I love that I'm being called a hippie for saying "these nanny state rules suck. We don't need to be protected from ourselves." I'm advocating a small-l libertarian, market-based position.

farkingfun:thurstonxhowell: Teiritzamna: farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......

But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.

Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.

From the Article:The state is arguing that Hershberger violated the law by selling milk (raw) while he was not licensed.

If he were selling milk to a processing plant (for which licences can be obtained) without a license the charge would be appropriate. It sounds like the judge is allowing an end-run because the laws don't currently exist to prosecute.

It's almost like they were deliberately and intentionally making it illegal to sell raw milk to consumers, unless those consumers are processing plants. It almost seems like the whole point of the requiring licensing and then not providing an option to provide your potential death milk to consumers was to prevent you from getting your bacteria laden milk into stores and markets.

We COULD just nuke everything, and not deal with pasteurizing OR raw milk, but people got brain washed with movies about giant ants in the 50s, and we care more about our hysteria than people dying from untreated food.

Gonz:Russ1642: Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.

I have a better idea: instead of misrepresenting my position on the manner, let's go with what I actually think. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and allow the sale of both pasteurized and raw milk, and let the public make its own decisions about nutrition.

Obviously, until there's enough data on the subject, you're going to want to err on the side of caution in re: schools and hospitals and such. But this isn't 1918, we're not bringing milk to town in a Model T anymore. Let's let people have a choice in the manner.

And I love that I'm being called a hippie for saying "these nanny state rules suck. We don't need to be protected from ourselves." I'm advocating a small-l libertarian, market-based position.

bopis:phalamir: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

So someone selling live, rabid, feral hogs should skate? Cause that it a natural product in a natural state. "Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you". If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid. And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people. No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

/Kinda want the government to establish a preserve of a 1340s Cumbrian village for those who consider public health and safety regs some form of abject tyranny. You hate pasteurization? Then go live without it - and every other totalitarian indignity, like medicine based on science, and not living in filth 24/7

So how do you explain the government merely taxing known poisons such as alcohol and tobacco? Why doesnt it protect us then?

I have no problem with outlawing either. But I'm not sure Drew's liver could handle being out of work after being on overtime for so long

Gonz:And I love that I'm being called a hippie for saying "these nanny state rules suck. We don't need to be protected from ourselves." I'm advocating a small-l libertarian, market-based position.

At BEST you're going to get the FDA to back off to allowing labeled Raw milk with skulls and huge Surgeon General warnings on them about disease risks. You're not going to be any happier if we treat raw milk like we treat any other potentially harmful substance. Raw milk WILL eventually make someone sick. Maybe not every single batch, but you can't keep milk clean. If you consume raw milk regularly, you're going to be fighting off infections regularly. At some point, statistically, it's likely that you will consume something that you can't fight off, due to a period of weakened immunity, and you'll get sick, and are likely to end up hospitalized.

I made it to the point where it revealed it was just another case of some entitled jag off who figured "why the hell should I have to obey the law that everyone else everywhere in this country that produces milk has to follow." It always amazes me how many people on this site just rush to defend the "little guy" against the mean 'ole gubmint sorry douchebags but first of all selective enforcement of the law is in fact a crime. Second, I don't care if you're selling one bottle or a million there are some very good reasons people aren't allowed sell raw milk.

Russ1642:Gonz: Tatterdemalian: mbillips: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.

This. Might as well eliminate the FDA while you're at it.

/yes, the economy is hobbled by overregulation//removing regulations on food standards while keeping the ones that force farmers to spend at least 15 minutes each day "emotionally bonding and mentally stimulating" each individual head of livestock is the definition of doing it wrong

Oh, Nanny State! Please don't treat me like an adult and let me make a choice in this matter! Protect me from nature, and make sure you regulate exactly what I may eat, as I am a frightened individual who needs to be protected from myself.

Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.

Ok, this is just hilarious. Both sides of this argument are basically calling the other side liberal hippies.

Seems pretty simple to me. The defense was planning to turn this into a civil rights issue by making the whole trial about whether or not selling raw milk should be illegal instead of whether or not Hershberger sold raw milk without a license (which is illegal). They intended to argue irrelevant things like the safety of drinking raw milk, whether or not it's possible to obtain a license when you're selling raw milk directly to customers (it's not, and that's very intentional), and whether or not the warrant for the 2010 raid on his farm was valid (Hershberger believed he'd found a loophole- he hadn't applied for a license to sell raw milk, and wasn't "selling" the milk, simply giving it to people in exchange for money, which means the FDA had no jurisdiction to inspect him for evidence he was selling raw milk).

The judge rightly saw these as prejudicial and without any value, and banned them. It was a good call.

ReverendJasen:JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.

Yes, and that's exactly the point. This is another case where the prosecutor has reason to believe that if the jury know the reasons or circumstances that lead to the breaking of the law in question, they might not be able to convict with good conscience. What they want is to simply say "was the law brooken, yes or no?"This is not justice. The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice. And if a jury hears all the facts, and then says "well, he broke the letter of the law, but we don't agree he should be punished for it (or had little other choice, etc)" then the law is wrong, too vague, stupid, or unconscionable. Jury nullifcation is a good thing--it's one of the only ways we as a people have to protect each other from bad laws and bad lawmakers.

That's fine for some laws, but a lot of environmental and safety laws sound stupid and pointless unless you've got at least a college education in biology or chemistry. Raw milk is dangerous. That's a proven fact. But the right lawyer, with enough charisma, could convince at least 1 juror that it's not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (it has, but he only needs 1 out of 12 to be stupid enough to think it hasn't). He'd force the prosecution to waste time and money (your money) bringing in expert witnesses to defend the law, and at the end of the day, the jurors would acquit not because the law's bad, but because both sides brought in experts to say exactly opposite things, and that's reasonable doubt that those things are correct.

ScaryBottles:I made it to the point where it revealed it was just another case of some entitled jag off who figured "why the hell should I have to obey the law that everyone else everywhere in this country that produces milk has to follow." It always amazes me how many people on this site just rush to defend the "little guy" against the mean 'ole gubmint sorry douchebags but first of all selective enforcement of the law is in fact a crime. Second, I don't care if you're selling one bottle or a million there are some very good reasons people aren't allowed sell raw milk.

Your Fark handle is funny, considering the topic at hand.

I think they should be allowed to sell raw milk as long as the source is obvious. Get a bad batch? Sue the shiat out of the producer. That threat should be enough for the producer to be extra careful about sterilization procedures. Free market at work.

The article states he was selling to "buyer club members who had purchased shares in the cows". The arguments for requiring milk pasteurization are 100% correct. It seems to me though he wasn't selling milk so much as charging for the work, time and materials involved in raising and milking cows. The buyers are part owners of these cows. Whats next, hanging out in milking barns and and fining the farmer every time he snags some milk out of the tank? I've known farmers who never touched "city milk" a day in their lives. They haven't died yet. The way I see it when these people became Buyers Club Memebers, they took all risks on themselves.

Look, it's pretty simple. Raw milk is not a hazardous product. It's not flammable, it's not explosive, it's not going to contribute to air pollution, it's not going to contribute to water pollution, it's not toxic, it has absolutely no potential to hurt anyone who is a non-user. It doesn't even smell bad. It's illegal to sell.

And we allow hazardous products to be sold every day, in every state. Gasoline is an extremely hazardous product, it's flammable, it's potentially explosive, it's toxic, it can contribute to water pollution, it does contribute to air pollution, and it can hurt people who don't directly use it. It's got warning labels on it.

This is stupid.

Raw milk has the potential to be a vector for disease - but only diseases which will affect the actual user of the product. It's not going to cause an epidemic. It has absolutely zero potential to harm someone who doesn't actually consume it.

Doug Neidermeyer: And most recently of all, a "Roman Toga Party" was held from which we have received more than two dozen reports of individual acts of perversion SO profound and disgusting that decorum prohibits listing them here.

JasonOfOrilliaIt is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.

Whether or not the risks are "misrepresented" is immaterial, because there is no level of risk that would justify banning an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant. The mortality rate for using raw milk could be 100% and that still would not justify banning it 'for your protection'.

mbillipslaws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.

Raw milk has a shelf life too short for sale in groceries in urban centers far from the originating farm. True. And irrelevant to whether it's safe for consumption within a short time directly from the source, and the bigger issue of whether people have the right to make their own decisions about what they consume.

The only consistent principle in the government's treatment of food is that if you are a huge corporation you can get away with anything, but if you are small and weak then you're fair game.

phalamir"Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you". If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid.

If you think we're smart enough to not drink sulfuric acid, why do you think we're not smart enough to do our own farking research on anything else?

And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people. No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

See above. It only became a problem with the rise of the mass industrial-grocery system.

Russ1642Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.

This is stupid. Is this actually what people think?

farkingfunIt sounds like the judge is allowing an end-run because the laws don't currently exist to prosecute.

Sounds like justice to me!

Russ1642The public made this decision. Ages ago. And we still agree with it.

Thank you for making this decision for me because I'm clearly too stupid to have a valid opinion about what I can put in my own farking body.

ignacioThat's fine for some laws, but a lot of environmental and safety laws sound stupid and pointless unless you've got at least a college education in biology or chemistry. Raw milk is dangerous after sitting in a grocery store for a week. That's a proven fact.

ScaryBottles:I made it to the point where it revealed it was just another case of some entitled jag off who figured "why the hell should I have to obey the law that everyone else everywhere in this country that produces milk has to follow." It always amazes me how many people on this site just rush to defend the "little guy" against the mean 'ole gubmint sorry douchebags but first of all selective enforcement of the law is in fact a crime. Second, I don't care if you're selling one bottle or a million there are some very good reasons people aren't allowed sell raw milk.

This was a case where consumers bought shares of cows and then wanted the dairy farmer to sell them the raw milk that came from the cows that they bought shares in. It's not like the farmer was trying to get away with selling consumers sub-par milk - he was trying to give consumers exactly what they wanted.

I think it should be like when you go to a restaurant and you order your pork chops a little pink - the chef comes out, verifies that you know how stupid you are being by asking for this service, and then proceeds to give you the food that may give you parasites.

Lando Lincoln:I think it should be like when you go to a restaurant and you order your pork chops a little pink - the chef comes out, verifies that you know how stupid you are being by asking for this service, and then proceeds to give you the food that may give you parasites.

If your chef's doing that, unless you're at a restaurant that serves very, very free-range pork, then your chef isn't up on his industry information.

Trichnosis is a thing of the past in modern American commercial pork. Get 'em to 145 to kill off any potential e. coli, and you're good. Feral hog is a different story, but I don't know of many places where that's on the menu.

RanDomino:JasonOfOrilliaIt is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.

Whether or not the risks are "misrepresented" is immaterial, because there is no level of risk that would justify banning an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant. The mortality rate for using raw milk could be 100% and that still would not justify banning it 'for your protection'.

Perhaps you missed this Fark thread on a Campylobacteroutbreak spread through unpasteurized milk. It is, as I found out in that thread, communicable from human to human. This action can harm people other than the willing participant and there is, as a result, a public health interest.

I would not drink raw milk, just like I would not drink ground water. I do not like getting sick from contaminated products when there is a simple way to prevent it. All it takes is one episode of diarrhea that takes months to go away to make you realize the danger, and why there are regulations about the proper handling of foodstuffs...